Hate crimes...

Post Reply New Topic

So you are for the BNP? no wonder nobody likes you.

Nope, but it is still a legitmate political organisation, and the hate crimes legislation is just promotional material for them.

It's funny how the proponents of liberal policies such as imposing legislation for "hate" crimes are actually the most intolerant people you'll ever meet!

Yeah I've found that funny too. They call themselves "tolerant" and "open-minded", but a lot of them I've met hate religious people, right-wingers, just people with radically different ideals from them.

Hate crime legislation is just plain stupid.

I don't hate right-wing or religious people, I just think they're ret*d.

You say hate crime legislation is there to protect those groups from those crimes? Obviously it isn't working, because they are still getting killed and robbed etc. I think the whole justice system could do with a complete overhaul - if the police arrest someone, they should make sure the evidence of that crime is watertight, and the courts should punish criminals properly (instead of namby-pamby penalties that let some of these crims back into society). Also, if the evidence was watertight in the first place, innocent people wouldn't be railroaded, and people would get their just desserts. If someone has killed someone, make absolutely sure they have done it, exhaust all possibilities that no-one else could have done it, then make sure they get what is coming to them. I don't give a stuff if the investigation takes years, do it properly or don't bother at all. It's mostly the f*cking media sensationalizing anyway, and politicians trying to score points for an upcoming election. Those bastards (politicians) are elected to do a job because the electorate is their employer, not just when they see fit. Judges get it too easy too. If they can't make a correct decision in a trial using the evidence that is there, sack 'em. And juries should be allowed to question the evidence in the actual trial, and this grand jury sh*t (which is the prosecutor's advantage) should be done away with. Why should the prosecutor get an end run using 23 people to decide whether a case goes to trial when they can only decide on evidence he shows them? And if a jury fails to convict someone due to lack of evidence in a trial, or they just can't decide and a hung jury results, DISMISS THE CASE and stop wasting the court's time. That should clear back-logs, too. Law should be black and white, and it should be a case of either a person committed the crime or they didn't; none of thes grey are sh*t. And as for circumstantial evidence, it isn't worth the paper it is written on. Hard physical evidence is all that should count.

I think everyone is getting caught up in the semantics of "Hate Crime" and not looking at the history of how it came into being in the U.S.

The reason that the Federal Gov. introduced hate crime legislation was due to the fact that crimes against minorites were often not prosecuted by local athorities. This was particularly the case in the South. In many cases where a Black was killed by a white (lynching) the local cops were often sympathetic to the murderers (KKK) and the crime would go unpunished. This has also been the case with Jews, Gays and other minority groups.

The Federal hate crimes legislation was designed to give the Federal Gov. Juristiction in cases they couldn't otherwise prosecute. This, coupled with RICO laws, gave the Feds the tools they needed to prosecute local law enforcement agencies for failure to enforce their own laws.

Well, from an individual stand point, this PC craze has gotten out of hand, and it might well be the beginning on minorities flipping the script on todays white males who had nothing to do with the actions of our forefathers.
As far as the gay rights thing, two wrongs don't make a right. Rather he should have been locked up for his statement is debatable, but gays do deserve equal rights, and I'm not being a pc zealot by saying that at all. Everyone deserves equal rights. And forced religious assimilation is no substitute for economic freedom and equality. Just because I'm not bigoted towards white straight christian males doesn't mean I must be bigoted towards black gay muslim females either..... As for religion, it's becoming just as much of a problem as this pc thing, it's being used as a mask for hatred and ignorance.... Here in America we have to vote between jesus nazi's and the pc police.

Of coarse, as for murder, a murder is a murder, why does it matter if they were killed because of bigotry? The bottom line is, they were murdered.
Hitler killed over 1,000,000 jews, all ethnically motivated, Stalin killed several times that many people in his death camps, and had a body count that made Hitler's look jeuvanile (can't figure out how to spell that word correctly lol).
Now I'm not making excuses for Hitler, what he did was dead wrong, BUT, who was the greater evil, Hitler or Stalin? I'd say Stalin because he killed more people.

Presuming one is anti-death.

Plus, taking a heavy undercount on
the number of Jews killed is not such
a great idea. I'd suggest going with
the more acceptable 6 million.

Although I think the 6 million would actually count all the Jews killed by the Nazis, Russians etc and it would also include the gypsies from countries like Romania etc that got caught up in the 'cleansing program'. We don't know the true numbers that Hitler sent to the death camps at Auschwitz etc, but I'd just say it was a hell of a f*cking lot, and was a disgusting crime no matter what.

I personally think the whole legislation itself is based on semantics anyway.

No. The 6 million is pretty well accepted as
the number of Jews killed by Nazi Germany -
some of which weren't German citizens.

Total Nazi persecutions probably accounted
for some 10 million people.

Stalin managed 20 million, but with less
emphasis on Jews, and over a longer time.

I thought the 6 million number was about all people killed in concentration camps, jews, gypsies, people with disabilities including german citizens, prisoners, etc. not only jews.

greenblue: that's roughly what I thought, given that the whole population of Australia during the war was around 6 million. We are at around 20.5 mill now. It's possible that people like Simon Wiesenthal and the Nazi hunters exaggerated the figure to make it look worse for the Nazis (how much worse could it have been anyway?), but I suppose that remains moot.

Well that still says you're close-minded to people that are different from you, making you no more open-minded than the rest of the human population.